Magic Statistics

As an addendum to my recent post refuting Michael Moore’s rose-coloured view of socialised medicine in the UK, check out this recent news from Britain.

Record numbers go abroad for health

Record numbers of Britons are flying abroad for medical treatment to escape NHS waiting lists and the rising threat of hospital superbugs.

Thousands of "health tourists" are going as far as India, Malaysia and South Africa for major operations – such is their despair over the quality of health services.

The first survey of Britons opting for treatment overseas shows that fears of hospital infections and frustration with NHS waiting lists are fuelling the increasing trend.

More than 70,000 Britons will have treatment abroad this year – a figure that is forecast to rise to almost 200,000 by the end of the decade.

NHS meltdown?

h/t: Wesley J Smith at Secondhand Smoke

Previous related posts:

• Michael Moore, Mr Worldly-Wiseman
• Canadian health care system no more equitable than the American
• “Staffing time-bomb” at Britain’s National Health Service

This outrageous story is another shocking example of how fastidious and legalistic adherence to Islamic moral dogma imposes needless pain and suffering on women and children.

Doctor Philippe Becx from Bree, Belgium, was called to the hospital in the middle of the night because a woman had to undergo an emergeny [sic] caesarean section.

However, her husband blocked the door and demanded a female anesthetist. The latter was unavailable.

After a two-hour discussion proved fruitless, an imam was summoned. The imam permitted the doctor to apply an epidural injection, but only if the woman was fully covered with only a small area of skin showing.

OK, hold it right there.  If it’s an emergency, how can the doctor and the husband flap their gums in the hallway for two hours?  I put that question to my own personal operating room nurse, the StatWife, who explained that the adjective “emergency” with reference to a c-section can mean two different things.

There’s the “foetal distress” emergency, in which the unborn baby is at risk of imminent, serious damage to life or well-being and must be removed from the womb ASAP.

The other type of emergency c-section is necessitated by “failure to progress”, in which the mother has been in prolonged labour but the baby is not moving down the birth channel.  The obstetrician/gynecologist decides a c-section is called for because the birth process is not progressing.  This is urgent but usually not an immediate life-and-death crisis.

So, Dr Becx and the husband have time to engage in two hours of foolish argument only if the c-section is due to failure to progress.  But note this: Throughout the two hours during which the husband prevents the doctor from doing his job, his wife is still in labour—and not progressing.  The woman has no anaesthetic on board because the anaesthetist hasn’t even reached her bedside yet.  That bonehead subjected his wife to two hours of utterly pointless labour!

I have another question: What were the gynecologist and nurses doing during those two hours?  Did no one jump in to tell that jerk to take a hike?

Here’s the surgical protocol worked out with the "help" of the imam.

During the surgery itself, performed by a female gynecologist, the anesthetist was to remain in the hallway. Through a door that was slightly ajar, he shouted instructions to a nurse who was monitoring the anesthesia.

According the hospital’s directors, the doctor acted with ‘admirable understanding.’ He would have been in his right to have the man removed by police.

If that’s true, then the anaesthetist shoulders part of the blame for the mother’s two extra hours of labour.  "Admirable"?  Not in my book.  Doctor: the husband is not your patient, and your real patients are suffering. Get on with it.

Fortunately, neither mother nor child suffered lasting damage.

After it was all over, Dr Becx filed complaints with a judge.  The husband has been charged with endangering the lives of his wife and child.

By the by, the original story in a Belgian newspaper is written in what appears to me to be Dutch.  I consulted two independent English translations, and they agree on all the particulars.

Previous related post: Women forced to leave seminar on Islamic medical ethics

Today’s intriguing contrast in news about the Anglican Church of Canada: The Ottawa Citizen carries an item on yesterday’s meeting of traditional Anglicans, while Anglican Journal covers a confab of liberal "progressive" Anglicans called The Widening Circle.

A group of Canadian Anglicans on the liberal, or “progressive,” side of issues concerning homosexuality and the church have urged Anglican bishops to “proceed to (the) full inclusion (of gay and lesbian people) by providing access to all sacraments and sacramental rites of the church,” including marriage.

Apparently they believe, incorrectly, that marriage is a sacrament in the Anglican Church, a misconception that seems to be current among liberal "progressive" Anglicans.  (Either that, or the distinction between sacrament and sacramental rite is just too subtle for me.)  And if marriage is not a sacrament, a fortiori, how much less is "blessing" to be accorded that status.

Several conference delegates said they felt that the voices within the church that feel homosexuality is a sin and contrary to the Bible have been louder than the progressive majority.

I believe homosexual activity is a sin, but my feelings have nothing to do with it.  In discerning the teaching of the Bible, feelings are, and have always been, irrelevant.  Sound exegesis and rational argument are, and have always been, key to persuading the church to accept a proposed understanding of biblical doctrine.

As for the claim that advocates of orthodox beliefs predominate in the ACC, I can only say, "You can't be serious".  The General Synod motion to authorise SSBs failed by a hair's breadth.  Substantial majorities in the orders of laity (63-53) and clergy (78-59) voted in favour.  The resolution failed by only two votes in the order of bishops.

Since General Synod, moreover, diocesan synods in Ottawa and Montreal have voted in favour of same-sex blessings, with copious attendant publicity.  The Bishop of Huron is sure his diocese will follow suit at the first opportunity.

If those liberals “progressives” really believe that traditional voices have been louder than theirs, they can’t hear their own clamouring.

“It is important progressive voices be heard,” said Rev. Judy Herron-Graham of Toronto. “We are the other half of the Anglican church. How do we reach out to gay and lesbian people with a message of hope?” asked Andrea Brennan of Dorchester, Ont.

Answer: In the same way that the church reaches out to all people: by preaching Christ’s message of repentance and forgiveness and encouraging believers to persevere, with divine aid, in the path of holiness and righteousness.

Granted, it is not easy to minister to people entrenched in sinful behaviour of any kind, even when they earnestly desire to break free.  Anglicans in the pews (or clergy for that matter) who don't know how to help those who struggle with same-sex attraction to walk faithfully in the way of the Lord Jesus should consider putting them in contact with the Zacchaeus Fellowship.

Several delegates said progressive voices need to reclaim the word “orthodox” from such conservative groups as Anglican Essentials – a Canadian group that holds a conservative view of sexuality – and that “orthodox” really means, in the Anglican context, broad inclusiveness.

It seems to be a common tactic among liberals "progressives" to re-define words rather than grappling with their true significance and engaging in rational debate over substantive issues.  Certainly, it’s far easier to re-define "orthodox" instead of offering persuasive argument that one's views comport with Scripture.

Of course, that won’t fly.  Here’s the definition of "orthodox" from my Collins English Dictionary (First Canadian Edition, 2005, p. 1151):

1. conforming with established standards, as in religion, behaviour, or attitudes
2. conforming to the Christian faith as established by the early Church

Sorry, nothing there about inclusiveness, broad or otherwise.

The liberals "progressives" object to an Anglican Covenant because they don't want their doctrinal and liturgical innovations assessed by agreed-upon standards.  But, as Bishop of Durham Tom Wright recently pointed out, even friends can’t live together in anarchy.

The concluding statement from The Widening Circle urged the house of bishops “to reject any initiative which would seek to remake the Anglican Communion into a confessional expression of Christian faith governed by a magisterium (an authoritative body that determines doctrine).”

Mr. [Rev. Neil] Fernyhough [of New Westminster Diocese] commented in an interview that “Integrity Vancouver (a support group for gay Anglicans) sent me in response to un-Anglican trends that are driving the (international Anglican) communion to be a confessional church that sets out comprehensive sets of belief, practice and doctrine.”

So, who decides what's "un-Anglican", and on what basis?  You just said you don't want a magisterium.

c/p: Anglican Essentials Canada Blog

Previous related posts:

• Ottawa Anglicans consider “biblically faithful” church structure
• New Westminster doesn’t like the draft Anglican Covenant
• Zacchaeus Fellowship betrayed by Canadian House of Bishops statement
• Two concepts of “inclusiveness”

Yesterday evening, about 75 people attended a meeting hosted by the Anglican Network in Ottawa to discuss implications of Ottawa Synod’s decision to request authorisation of same-sex blessings.

A group representing orthodox Anglicans in Ottawa is proposing formation of a new branch of the church in Canada that is more "biblically faithful" than the current church.

The meeting, called by Anglican Network, an arm of Anglican Essentials Ottawa, attracted about 75 people wanting to discuss the impact of the synod's decision and what should be done to remain true to tradition.

Tony Copple, president of Anglican Essentials Ottawa, sees Synod’s recommendation of SSBs as the latest manifestation of the church’s turn away from traditional theological and moral convictions.

He advised the crowd at the meeting to stand up for tradition instead of remaining silent in their disapproval.

"Are we being too confrontational? Shouldn't we be compromising?" he asked. "I don't remember Jesus compromising to anybody. He didn't make deals with people. Jesus knew what was right and what was wrong."

The sense that the church is abandoning its traditional values is what motivated many to attend the meeting.

As yet, no specific answers are available about the founding of a new church structure.  It is hoped that more details will become clear at the Anglican Network’s pivotal national conference Building on the Solid Rock to be held in Burlington, Ontario, 22-23 November.

Anglican Essentials Canada blogger Peter Lillington plans to attend.  He and all the delegates need our prayers.  A prayer guide for the November Summit can be downloaded here.

c/p: Anglican Essentials Canada Blog

Previous related posts:

• Primate sees no problem with Ottawa Synod resolution
• Ottawa Citizen reporter blogs from Ottawa Synod
• Ottawa Anglican church considers banning marriages

The collect for today, the Feast of Saint Simon & Saint Jude, Apostles, from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer:

O almighty God, who has built thy Church upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the head cornerstone; Grant us so to be joined together in unity of spirit by their doctrine, that we may be made an holy temple acceptable unto thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Epistle: St Jude 1-16
The Gospel: St John 15:17-27

More on St Simon and St Jude here. 

(This commemoration has been transferred from 28 October.)

Artwork: Peter Paul Rubens, St Simon, c 1610-1612, Oil on canvas, Prado, Madrid.

Artwork: Bicci di Loenzo, St Jude Thaddaeus, 1440, Fresco (fragment), Museo dell'Opera del Duomo, Florence.